Ro
En
Рy17 June 2015
1298 reads
Olivia PIRTAC,
expert media legislation
expert media legislation
Hate speech is addressed by many international and European organisations, but there is no generally accepted definition for it. The legislation of Moldova however provides a clear definition, which is law no.64 of 23.04.2010 on the freedom of expression. Article 2 of this law defines hate speech “any form of expression causing, spreading, promoting or justifying racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance.” This definition is inspired by the Recommendation 97(20) of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers on “hate speech”.
The situation in Moldova reveals problems similar to those at the European level. The recent changes in the field of mass communication and the development of social networks led to easier and cheaper spreading of aggressive and hostile messages. If making comments on news and articles published on the internet is allowed to be anonymous, people tend to be hateful and immoral. Victims are specific people, subjects of news and written articles, as well as typical groups vulnerable to hate speech: LGBT, national, religious or ethnic minorities etc. If we analyze the cases threated by the media, which ended with lawsuits or petitions to the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality, then victims that mostly face hate speech in Moldova are LGBT and Romani people. But this could be just a quantitative estimation, or a first impression, due to the accent of the strategic litigation some stressed by NGOs protecting the rights of LGBT and Romani people. However, hate speech comes from different and diverse sources in respect of homophobia: it is supported both by some public figures, religious leaders, and by people writing about is on the internet as a rule anonymously. Hate speeches related to other minorities (national ethnical, religious) are usually set forward by public figures.
The general inadmissibility if the hate speech is provided for by the Constitution and the Law on the freedom of expression, but it is thoroughly regulated by certain laws comprising guarantees and mechanisms of protection suing complementary notions. Speaking about laws containing protection mechanisms we should mention Article 346of the Criminal Code 985 of 18.04.2002, Law no.54 of 21.02.2013 on fighting extremist activity, as well as the Law no. 121 of 25.05.2012 on ensuring equality, which sanctions hate speech. The Broadcasting Code provides for in Article 6 that (1) “It is prohibited to broadcast programs containing any form of hate speech based on racial, religious, national or gender criteria.”
Therefore, since the hate speech is not qualified as an offence, that the civil legislation to be applied in such case is the anti-discrimination law, provided that the speech can be qualified as hate speech. In terms of civil legislation, the authorities that could apply sanctions besides a court law are the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality and the Coordinating Council of Audiovisual in case of offenders subject to the Broadcasting Code.
Journalist and editors should realise that news are not written only when someone says something scandalous. They should examine the context in which such statement is made, as well as the statute and reputation of the one that stated that. It is wise to ignore politicians that are known to be scandalous and manipulators, as well as people who are not public figures but engage in a hate speech. Comments made on the internet should be moderated, and the aggressive, discriminating and hateful ones should be excluded. The freedom of expression is very important; it should be encouraged, but not in anyhow: journalists should provide a platform for promoting intolerance, hatred and hate speech.
_____________________
The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
The situation in Moldova reveals problems similar to those at the European level. The recent changes in the field of mass communication and the development of social networks led to easier and cheaper spreading of aggressive and hostile messages. If making comments on news and articles published on the internet is allowed to be anonymous, people tend to be hateful and immoral. Victims are specific people, subjects of news and written articles, as well as typical groups vulnerable to hate speech: LGBT, national, religious or ethnic minorities etc. If we analyze the cases threated by the media, which ended with lawsuits or petitions to the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality, then victims that mostly face hate speech in Moldova are LGBT and Romani people. But this could be just a quantitative estimation, or a first impression, due to the accent of the strategic litigation some stressed by NGOs protecting the rights of LGBT and Romani people. However, hate speech comes from different and diverse sources in respect of homophobia: it is supported both by some public figures, religious leaders, and by people writing about is on the internet as a rule anonymously. Hate speeches related to other minorities (national ethnical, religious) are usually set forward by public figures.
The general inadmissibility if the hate speech is provided for by the Constitution and the Law on the freedom of expression, but it is thoroughly regulated by certain laws comprising guarantees and mechanisms of protection suing complementary notions. Speaking about laws containing protection mechanisms we should mention Article 346of the Criminal Code 985 of 18.04.2002, Law no.54 of 21.02.2013 on fighting extremist activity, as well as the Law no. 121 of 25.05.2012 on ensuring equality, which sanctions hate speech. The Broadcasting Code provides for in Article 6 that (1) “It is prohibited to broadcast programs containing any form of hate speech based on racial, religious, national or gender criteria.”
Therefore, since the hate speech is not qualified as an offence, that the civil legislation to be applied in such case is the anti-discrimination law, provided that the speech can be qualified as hate speech. In terms of civil legislation, the authorities that could apply sanctions besides a court law are the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality and the Coordinating Council of Audiovisual in case of offenders subject to the Broadcasting Code.
Journalist and editors should realise that news are not written only when someone says something scandalous. They should examine the context in which such statement is made, as well as the statute and reputation of the one that stated that. It is wise to ignore politicians that are known to be scandalous and manipulators, as well as people who are not public figures but engage in a hate speech. Comments made on the internet should be moderated, and the aggressive, discriminating and hateful ones should be excluded. The freedom of expression is very important; it should be encouraged, but not in anyhow: journalists should provide a platform for promoting intolerance, hatred and hate speech.
_____________________
The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
